UNPUBLISHED

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 11-6575

DEMOND WELLS,
Petitioner Appellant,
v.
ROBERT G. JONES,
Respondent - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of North Carolina, at Raleigh.
Terrence W. Boyle,
District Judge. (5:09-hc-02046-BO)

Submitted:

July 21, 2011

Before NIEMEYER and

Senior Circuit Judge.

GREGORY,

Decided:

Circuit

Judges,

July 26, 2011

and

HAMILTON,

Dismissed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Demond Wells, Appellant Pro Se. Mary Carla Hollis, Assistant

Attorney General, Raleigh, North Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM:
Demond
order

denying

Wells
his

seeks
Fed.

to

R.

appeal
Civ.

the

P.

district

60(b)

courts

motion

for

reconsideration of the denial of Wells 28 U.S.C. 2254 (2006)

petition.
or

judge

The order is not appealable unless a circuit justice

issues

certificate

of

appealability.

28

U.S.C.

2253(c)(1)(A) (2006); Reid v. Angelone, 369 F.3d 363, 369 (4th

Cir.

2004).

certificate

of

appealability

will

not

issue

absent a substantial showing of the denial of a constitutional

right.

28 U.S.C. 2253(c)(2) (2006).

When the district court

denies relief on the merits, a prisoner satisfies this standard

by demonstrating that reasonable jurists would find that the
district
debatable

courts
or

assessment

wrong.

Slack

of

the

constitutional

v.

McDaniel,

529

U.S.

claims

is

473,

484

(2000); see Miller-El v. Cockrell, 537 U.S. 322, 336-38 (2003).

When the district court denies relief on procedural grounds, the
prisoner must demonstrate both that the dispositive procedural
ruling is debatable, and that the petition states a debatable
claim of the denial of a constitutional right.

Slack, 529 U.S.

at

the

484-85.

conclude

We

that

have
Wells

independently
has

not

reviewed

made

record

requisite

and

showing.

Accordingly, we deny a certificate of appealability and dismiss

the appeal.

We dispense with oral argument because the facts

and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials

2

before

the

court

and

argument

would

not

aid

the

decisional

process.

DISMISSED